Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[jamil]

For one no, history does not prove that. You claim that peers should mean similar people, such as a police officers being tried infront of a jury of police officers (thats what this debate is about). Women werent even allowed to be on a jury until 1920 in Indiana. It took until 1968 for women to be able to in Mississippi. So no history does not prove that peers means people similar to you. For most of history it was just white land owners serving on jurys, not people with similar backgrounds.

Would a woman get a fairer trial if women were on the jury or if it were all just white male land owners?

 

[KG1]

We all know well and good that a jury of his "peers" would never have been acceptable to the mob.

 

[IndyGal65]

So you can’t, or willfully choose not too. That’s fine.

I'm taking a page from your book...dodge and deflect.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh, really? Then why don't they just corral a few random yahoos off reddit to do PEER review? Peer means of a similar level of intelligence, education and expertise

Yeah no. At least not according to highest court in the land. Smith v Texas (1940)

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm taking a page from your book...dodge and deflect.

Ha. If you say so.

 

[BugI02]

Yeah no. At least not according to highest court in the land. Smith v Texas (1940)

Is that the same 'highest court in the land' that ruled that Dred Scott was property? So, infallible I guess, yes?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is that the same 'highest court in the land' that ruled that Dred Scott was property? So, infallible I guess, yes?

Scott was overturned in less that 12 years. Smith has been around since 1940, so it’s been running strong for 80+ years. It’s an unique legal argument though, one that would get you laughed out of a courtroom, but unique.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You are legitimately ****ing insane.

Says the guy who claiming “white Genocide is around the corner,” and is afraid to tell the truth while serving on a jury.

 

[kickbacked]

Again you are using modern-day so called Justice system. We are talking 1700's early 1800's just because a bunch of leftist change the system doesn't mean it didn't work.

We will have to agree to disagree. I believe you are wrong and you believe I'm wrong I'm not going to change your views nor are you going to change my views on this issue.

Well its the justice system we've been using our entire lives years. The justice system you seem to want to use, only allows a specific class, determines guilt by asking the accused to recite the lords prayer and then when they do is immediately dismissed because the devil was helping them and they're found guilty of being a witch.

Not sure why you think thats a better method but ok.

 

[jamil]

“Peers,” means fellow citizens. Full stop. If one want to open that Pandora’s box and allow further identifiers, then you have started down the path of whole other level of problems.

It's really up to the lawyers on each side to decide what "peers" are. In this case, I'm sure that the prosecution wanted people who were as far from being like Chauvin as possible. The defense probably would rather they were much more like Chuavin. To be a peer, I don't think race matters that much, but culture does.

For the sake of juries, I think peer mostly means not biased for or against the person. If I'm a cop accused of shooting a Black man, I don't think I want an all Black jury because it's a lot more likely that some people on that jury are biased against. You'd probably not want an all white jury. You want a jury that will be as sympathetic to your side as the other side will allow.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well its the justice system we've been using our entire lives years. The justice system you seem to want to use, only allows a specific class, determines guilt by asking the accused to recite the lords prayer and then when they do is immediately dismissed because the devil was helping them and they're found guilty of being a witch.

Not sure why you think thats a better method but ok.

They really haven’t thought this “jury of you peers” thing (at least how they see it through). First time a Muslim guy walks because an all Muslim jury gets them off, they’ll be crying foul. First time an inner city “POC” has their case nullified, by the same “demographic,” they’re gonna talk about how corrupt the system is. They’ve been fine with stuff for decades, but when stuff goes the other way “Yeah, this needs to be changed.”

 

[jamil]

Peer means equal in societal group, age, status (Merriam Webster) not just citizen. So I'll give you a "B" grade on meaning.

I think in the legal sense, peer doesn't have to be that. In the same community in most cases, sure. Age? Race? Not necessarily but you'd hope if it were you being tried that the defense would try to influence the jury to make sure it's made up of people who are not going to be biased against you because of age, race, whatever.

 

[DadSmith]

Well its the justice system we've been using our entire lives years. The justice system you seem to want to use, only allows a specific class, determines guilt by asking the accused to recite the lords prayer and then when they do is immediately dismissed because the devil was helping them and they're found guilty of being a witch.

Not sure why you think thats a better method but ok.

Obviously now your trying to tell me how I think and you are way off in your assumptions. Again leave it as a agree to disagree. You obviously dislike what the founders set up but hey that's on you. Just because leftist change our system of government and everything it stands for doesn't mean it is or was allowed by our founders. You obviously have a problem with the real meaning of peers as Webster described it. That is what our founders believed. I'm sure we'll regulated means state controlled when it comes to firearms as well. In those days well regulated meaning was well trained in the use of firearms. You must understand the meaning the founders meant not a modern interpretation of those words.

 

[jamil]

Clown world.

In a sane world "decenter" wouldn't be a thing. Centering oneself is a goal to be sought by sane people. But this thing which is essentially sacralizing a person who was obviously no saint belongs in the insane social justice thread too.

 

[jamil]

It absolutely would not.

Depends which way it goes. The prosecution gets a say too. I was kicked off a jury once because I'm an engineer. The questions the prosecutor asked of me had to do with how absolute I apply facts to a decision. I think he misunderstood engineers. My answer was that engineers deal with tolerances. The world isn't nominal. You design to fit your application to the world it lives in. But he apparently thought might be too black and white and I was excused. It made me think that his evidence was **** and was trying to pick jurors who decided things based more on feelings.

I'd have probably been sympathetic to the defense if the facts were light and the prosecutor's strategy was to try to get the jury riled up about the crime.

 

[Tombs]

Says the guy who claiming “white Genocide is around the corner,” and is afraid to tell the truth while serving on a jury.

BLM Activists Suggest We Should 'Start Killing' All White People | The Red Elephants

A shocking interview from the George Floyd memorial in Minneapolis reveals how many Black Americans think about White people in the US. During the collection of interviews, journalist and filmmaker Ami Horowitz asked several people who were attending the memorial about their thoughts on burning...

theredelephants.com

It's right here for you to see.
But just like Biden's policy website, you'll refuse to look because it doesn't suit your narrative and you can claim ignorance.

 

[jamil]

Doing nothing but cashing checks and writing tickets. Sounds like a good gig.

I think they just want bobbies. Put a gay ass uniform on them. Give them a billy club to whack an occasional perp using a bit too much free speech. Investigating people who say the wrong mean things on the internet. That's the future of policing in America.

 

[kickbacked]

Obviously now your trying to tell me how I think and you are way off in your assumptions. Again leave it as a agree to disagree. You obviously dislike what the founders set up but hey that's on you. Just because leftist change our system of government and everything it stands for doesn't mean it is or was allowed by our founders. You obviously have a problem with the real meaning of peers as Webster described it. That is what our founders believed. I'm sure we'll regulated means state controlled when it comes to firearms as well. In those days well regulated meaning was well trained in the use of firearms. You must understand the meaning the founders meant not a modern interpretation of those words.

Well feel free to explain your position. Im not telling you how you think. Im sharing with you non disputable historical facts. Jury of your peers originally meant anyone who wasnt the King. What do you mean leftists changed our system of government?

 

[jamil]

Yeah no. At least not according to highest court in the land. Smith v Texas (1940)

There's another case, Batson v KY, 1986. The accused was a Black man, there were four Black jurors but were removed. So then the all white jury convicted him.

Eventually the court used a ruling from another case that said a person does not have a right to a jury composed wholly or in part of his own race. But also ruled that people can't be removed from a jury because of their race.

 

[DadSmith]

Well feel free to explain your position. Im not telling you how you think. Im sharing with you non disputable historical facts. Jury of your peers originally meant anyone who wasnt the King. What do you mean leftists changed our system of government?

The meaning of federalism has changed over time. During the first decades of the republic, many politicians held that states’ rights allowed states to disobey any national government that in their view exceeded its powers. Such a doctrine was largely discredited after the Civil War. Then dual federalism, a clear division of labor between national and state government, became the dominant doctrine. During the New Deal of the 1930s, cooperative federalism, whereby federal and state governments work together to solve problems, emerged and held sway until the 1960s. Since then, the situation is summarized by the term competitive federalism, whereby responsibilities are assigned based on whether the national government or the state is thought to be best able to handle the task. So a lot has changed since our country started and so have the meanings. One could say that this current Federal Government is operating way outside it's constitutional constraints.


You better read the Magna Carta again you are way off.